11/30/2001

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — No international security forces should be sent into Afghanistan until the war is over, the White House said Friday. A spokesman said President Bush remains opposed to use of U.S. troops in such missions.

"The president looks forward to the day when peacekeepers can arrive into Afghanistan, but there is still a war under way," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer.

Fleischer made the remarks as Afghan factions met in Germany to discuss a post-Taliban government and details of an international peacekeeping force backed by the United States.

Several allied governments, including Britain, France, Canada, Turkey and Jordan, set aside troops to help speed humanitarian aid in Afghanistan. Private relief groups say the absence of an international security force is hampering aid deliveries.

Fleischer said Bush had not decided whether to include U.S. forces in a peacekeeping mission, though he suggested that doing so would run counter to Bush's philosophy.

"I think it's premature to start getting into specifics about what the exact nature of the peacekeeping operation would be until the war can be completed successfully," the spokesman said.

During the presidential campaign last year, Bush repeatedly said U.S. forces should be used to win wars but not be used to maintain peace. Asked if that view had changed, Fleischer said, "It has not. No. The president's philosophy remains unchanged."

Does that rule out U.S. troops taking part in peacekeeping missions? "No. I think again the purpose of American military in the president's opinion is to fight and win wars and that is what we're in the middle of now," he said.

Both the United States and the United Nations have made clear they don't want to be a part of a peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, either now or after the war ends. They worry that peacekeeping troops would face attacks from rival factions and get bogged down for years. Both support letting Afghans keep the peace among themselves while recognizing the possible need for an international security force if the Afghans cannot handle the job.

For their part, Afghans are divided. The northern alliance, which controls much of the country, reiterated Thursday that its own forces are keeping peace just fine, for now. Other Afghans want international troops, now.

Meanwhile, Iran is leery of Western troops just across its border in Afghanistan. Another neighbor, Pakistan, wants to protect the interests of the majority Pashtuns, who control the south, have little to do with the northern alliance and have Taliban ties.

Already, foreign soldiers — from the United States, Britain, France, even Russia — occasionally act as de facto peacekeepers, working to repair airfields and increase security to facilitate food delivery.

Many Europeans worry that too little is being done. Unexploded mines and lawlessness on roads make delivery of emergency aid to Afghans unsafe, both around Mazar-e-Sharif in the north and Jalalabad in the east, a European Union official said Thursday.

"The security issue still is a very real problem," said the official, Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Poul Nielson.

Britain has 100-200 troops at an airfield near Kabul but initially had put thousands on alert for possible peacekeeping deployment. The northern alliance said the British troops weren't welcome before eventually allowing the Kabul presence.

The northern alliance, a collection of ethnic groups who previously controlled only the north, sees peacekeepers "as a pretext for rolling back the gains they've made on the ground," Lindsay said. "They see it as a threat to their political power."

Meanwhile, Russia has sent emergency ministry staff, construction crews and diplomats to Kabul for humanitarian work.

U.S. military teams are working to clear unexploded ammunition at the airport at Mazar-e-Sharif in the north so that humanitarian aid flights can land. French troops also are near Mazar.

Pakistan has offered to provide security for U.N. aid workers inside border areas of Afghanistan, but that is viewed with suspicion by the northern alliance. A Turkish force also is on standby for a possible peacekeeping mission, but Turkey's ties with the northern alliance could rile Pashtuns and Pakistan, where Pashtuns form a major ethnic bloc.

On Thursday, at talks in Germany on a post-Taliban government, the northern alliance said no international security force is needed in the country, at least not yet. But it won't oppose an international security force once an interim Afghan government is formed, said Younus Qanooni, leader of the alliance delegation.

In such a case, Afghans would prefer a foreign force drawn from Islamic countries, Qanooni said. Turkey and Bangladesh are possibilities.

The other three delegations at the talks all favor a neutral foreign force.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage reiterated this week that the United States wants Afghans to handle peacekeeping themselves. If they can't, then an international peacekeeping force might be necessary, he said.

Another senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the United States does not want to participate in any international security force.

Bush, during his campaign, said U.S. troops should never be used for "nation-building."

The reasons for U.S. and U.N. hesitancy are clear, Lindsay said.

"Peacekeepers do very well when they go into situations where peace has been established, where the parties want to get along and they just need a buffer," Lindsay said. "They do a terrible job when their job is really peacemaking."